Daniel Levy - Former Chairman

[P.D.]

Incredible that we still don't know if this actually happened, seems like it didn't but the story must have some legs.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Incredible that we still don't know if this actually happened, seems like it didn't but the story must have some legs.

Isn't that Tech Bro known as abit of a bullsh1tter

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

They very possibly had a succession plan in place with Paratici taking over negotiations starting in the Jan window.

However, if the plan was to fire Levy, and not let him voluntarily give up his responsibilities, then I doubt they would’ve let him negotiate 150 mil of transfers in last summer’s window. Purely conjecture but the math adds up better than if they were planning to fire him all along.

I actually made a similar point a few weeks ago. I think DL majorly screwed up in the summer and they removed him.

I don’t know it for sure of course, but it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. When DL was initially sacked, I thought that it must have been VV had known all along, and it was an all time great corporate skullduggery. But that’s actually too crazy.

I think hiring VV was to gradually take over the running of the day to day, keep DL in the family as a ceremonial leader who could think about the club’s ’long term interests’, and transition him out of executive responsibility. I also thought at the time we were clearly ‘moving differently’ as a club last summer. We were bidding bigger money on players and competing with clubs we don’t usually compete with, and doing business a lot earlier. And clearly offering higher wages up and down our scale.

I don’t think it gets fully appreciated how utterly embarrassing the MGW and Eze deals were to the club. I think DL was too involved, tried too many of his old tricks. And showed that he actually couldn’t operate at the altitude the club needed to fly at to truly contend with the other top clubs. And that showed that having DL in any position of responsibility whatsoever was going to lead to misalignment at the top.

I can’t know it for sure but it’s the only thing that makes sense with removing him right after the transfer window. There’s no way they would have allowed him to have such responsibility through the summer if they knew they were booting him. I think he majorly screwed up and they decided to get rid. Which unfortunately had a second order effect of plunging the club into more transition that it needed and almost getting relegated…

I’m not sure who the Lewis family trust on football to have a different perspective on how to run the club than DL. Where are they getting their advice from? Either way, I’m actually happy for them to see through their building and see how it goes. Because I do think they’re doing the right things to actually compete, in terms of moving quickly on players and offering higher wages.

 

[Ace Face]

I actually made a similar point a few weeks ago. I think DL majorly screwed up in the summer and they removed him.

I don’t know it for sure of course, but it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. When DL was initially sacked, I thought that it must have been VV had known all along, and it was an all time great corporate skullduggery. But that’s actually too crazy.

I think hiring VV was to gradually take over the running of the day to day, keep DL in the family as a ceremonial leader who could think about the club’s ’long term interests’, and transition him out of executive responsibility. I also thought at the time we were clearly ‘moving differently’ as a club last summer. We were bidding bigger money on players and competing with clubs we don’t usually compete with, and doing business a lot earlier. And clearly offering higher wages up and down our scale.

I don’t think it gets fully appreciated how utterly embarrassing the MGW and Eze deals were to the club. I think DL was too involved, tried too many of his old tricks. And showed that he actually couldn’t operate at the altitude the club needed to fly at to truly contend with the other top clubs. And that showed that having DL in any position of responsibility whatsoever was going to lead to misalignment at the top.

I can’t know it for sure but it’s the only thing that makes sense with removing him right after the transfer window. There’s no way they would have allowed him to have such responsibility through the summer if they knew they were booting him. I think he majorly screwed up and they decided to get rid. Which unfortunately had a second order effect of plunging the club into more transition that it needed and almost getting relegated…

I’m not sure who the Lewis family trust on football to have a different perspective on how to run the club than DL. Where are they getting their advice from? Either way, I’m actually happy for them to see through their building and see how it goes. Because I do think they’re doing the right things to actually compete, in terms of moving quickly on players and offering higher wages.

I agree 100%.

I can easily envisage an internal transfer window/squad review being very scathing of Levy's handling, leading to the conclusion that he had taken us as far as he could, and thus his exit.

 

[Mikey10]

We were a competent official away from not needing the last game
It’s all ifs, buts and maybes

We have finished 17th two seasons in a row. Not too many ifs, buts or maybes about that.

 

[Raziel]

I actually made a similar point a few weeks ago. I think DL majorly screwed up in the summer and they removed him.

I don’t think it gets fully appreciated how utterly embarrassing the MGW and Eze deals were to the club. I think DL was too involved, tried too many of his old tricks. And showed that he actually couldn’t operate at the altitude the club needed to fly at to truly contend with the other top clubs. And that showed that having DL in any position of responsibility whatsoever was going to lead to misalignment at the top.

MGW and Eze? I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but lets be clear, both of those deals are fan/media stories to try and paint Spurs in a bad light

- MGW agreed, there was a release clause, no haggling to do, no issue on our side, their owner went full gangster mode on a player whose wife was in hospital and the player backed down. To put that on DL/Lange/anyone at Spurs is utterly insane.

- Eze always wanted Arsenal, he called Arteta personally, he always was going to the minute he had numbers to offer the Arsenal. The fudge up on our side was not be clear up front with CAA (his agency that we deal with for a lot of other players) and him that we weren't a back up option.

No doubt there was a fall out, but it's highly unlikely it had anything to do with those two transfers. The going rumour with most legs is the number of bids on the club that the Lewis family and Levy didn't agree on (we don't know if one wanted to sell, one wanted different terms, whatever. There was some noise Levy wanted to stay on in case of sale .. that's all speculation)

 

[SirPercyHotspur]

That's just administrative, it will change when they next do the annual company's house return i imagine

When a director resigns Companies House need to be notified, the termination of appointment for Levy as a director of Tottenham Hotspur Ltd and all other companies under TH Ltd was filed on 5th September 2025 , the last accounts for ENIC Ltd UK were filed on 25th September 2025 and Levy was still an active director . Another new requirement of Companies House is identity verification of every director of every registered company in the UK , I know that for a fact as I have had to do it myself for my own company, Levy's identity verification was on 28th April 2026 for ENIC Ltd , at the moment he is still an active director of ENIC Ltd UK, it has no current connection to the running of the club apart from registered address but is all very strange.

 

[thfcsteff]

Welcome to TOTTENHAM!

Imagine having anegotiator than what we've

You jumped into the conversation and wanted to add a point about Ange that wasn't really the case.

Ok not really arguing the point,

...in which case STOP arguing that point then because you are clearly missing it.

i'm arguing that the synergy never existed and was never going to exist under the previous leadership.

Good grief. WE. AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think it would have mattered who the coach was. We simply lacked the organisational willingness to set a philosophy and to actually follow it. .

We didn't with all of the previous guys and that's why in saying you fixating on Ange is pointless,

You're fixating on Ange. I am pointing out what we stated we were doing through the football club when we appointed him (at all levels). I am then pointing out that 2 years later, we dumped this stated model, when such a model couldn't begin to really show fruit for several years (even though in this case we won a trophy).

it wouldn't have mattered who the coach was or what they had won. As soon as there was any degree of difficulty and failed to over perform Levy would fire them, that is what has always happened.
He got his dream coach Jose Mourinho in, a man he chased for 16 years, a man he claimed was one of the top 2 managers in the world in his eyes, a man for whom he fired the most successful manager he'd ever had. He still fired him before a cup final, why would Ange winning a lesser European competition give Levy any pause for thought?

Thus proving that we are NOT going to ever be a 'system' club in respects of a Brentford or even Brighton. That was Levy's 'dream' which he simply could never actually buy into when push came to shove. For that to work you need a whole different structure to the way he operated the club. It is undeniable he tried and wanted it, but I have always said that Arnesen was the only guy who could've made it work for him and that a piece of Levy was broken when Chelsea essentially stole him. Pleat, Commoli, Baldini, Mitchell, it's been an endless slog to try and get someone in who works. Those characters around Mourinho's era. Paratici was pretty close to succeeding until he got in hot water. Then came Lange and Munn. I think it was a genuine attempt by Levy to try and let the model work...alas, he could not. Munn was a fatal error in many senses IMO...

(BTW, one of the main reasons Daniel Levy fired people was whenever his own popularity was dropping beyond a certain threshold, or when the heat was on HIM more than anyone.
Look at the sackings. Each was a result of direct heat applied to his reputation. Poch is the only variable, and even then he was happy enough to slide his dreamboat in off the back of some disgruntled fans slagging Poch.)

 

[Jurgen the German]

MGW and Eze? I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but lets be clear, both of those deals are fan/media stories to try and paint Spurs in a bad light

- MGW agreed, there was a release clause, no haggling to do, no issue on our side, their owner went full gangster mode on a player whose wife was in hospital and the player backed down. To put that on DL/Lange/anyone at Spurs is utterly insane.

- Eze always wanted Arsenal, he called Arteta personally, he always was going to the minute he had numbers to offer the Arsenal. The fudge up on our side was not be clear up front with CAA (his agency that we deal with for a lot of other players) and him that we weren't a back up option.

No doubt there was a fall out, but it's highly unlikely it had anything to do with those two transfers. The going rumour with most legs is the number of bids on the club that the Lewis family and Levy didn't agree on (we don't know if one wanted to sell, one wanted different terms, whatever. There was some noise Levy wanted to stay on in case of sale .. that's all speculation)

I think it's fair to hold Daniel Levy partially responsible, but not solely responsible.

For Eze, there is fairly strong reporting that we had a long-standing interest and considered him a priority target at various points. Reports suggested we explored the deal, discussed terms, and even had periods where the player appeared open to joining. However, we never simply triggered the release clause early and removed uncertainty. Instead, the saga dragged on while other clubs became involved.

One of the recurring criticisms of his transfer strategy is trying to negotiate the "perfect deal" rather than closing quickly. If a player you clearly like ends up elsewhere, supporters will ask why the club didn't act decisively.

For Gibbs-White, the same principle applies. If we identified him as a target but ultimately couldn't get the deal done, some responsibility sits with the recruitment leadership.

Fans generally judge executives on results, not intentions. If we spend months being linked with Gibbs-White and Eze and end up with neither, many supporters will see that as a recruitment failure regardless of the behind-the-scenes reasons. But that doesn't automatically mean Levy personally sabotaged the deals. The reality is usually a combination of club strategy, negotiation choices, and factors outside the club's control such as the players changing their minds or to be blunt, they get better offers from elsewhere and decide to bin us off.

 

[Jurgen the German]

After the way he was treated, by the ownership and the fans, he could be forgiven for selling to whoever had the money.

I think that's a bit unfair to the fanbase.

Nobody can deny that Daniel Levy has made significant contributions to the club. The stadium is world-class, the commercial growth has been remarkable, and Spurs are in a far stronger financial position than they were when he arrived.

But at what point is it reasonable for supporters to expect more on the football side? Levy has been in charge for 25 years. Are fans supposed to have unlimited patience indefinitely, regardless of the outcomes on the pitch?

If anything, Tottenham supporters have been exceptionally patient. Many fanbases would have turned far more hostile long ago. Instead, Spurs fans largely bought into the long-term vision, accepted the sacrifices during the stadium build, and continued to support the club through years of promises about future success.

The frustration you're seeing now hasn't appeared overnight. It's the result of patience being tested repeatedly over the last seven years. Since reaching the Champions League final, supporters have watched opportunities come and go, managerial projects start and collapse, recruitment mistakes pile up, and periods of stagnation set in despite the club's enormous resources.

So while it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate Levy's achievements, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest fans are ungrateful simply because they're questioning the direction after a quarter of a century. Gratitude for what he's done and frustration at what hasn't been achieved are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Baleforce]

I think that's a bit unfair to the fanbase.

Nobody can deny that Daniel Levy has made significant contributions to the club. The stadium is world-class, the commercial growth has been remarkable, and Spurs are in a far stronger financial position than they were when he arrived.

But at what point is it reasonable for supporters to expect more on the football side? Levy has been in charge for 25 years. Are fans supposed to have unlimited patience indefinitely, regardless of the outcomes on the pitch?

If anything, Tottenham supporters have been exceptionally patient. Many fanbases would have turned far more hostile long ago. Instead, Spurs fans largely bought into the long-term vision, accepted the sacrifices during the stadium build, and continued to support the club through years of promises about future success.

The frustration you're seeing now hasn't appeared overnight. It's the result of patience being tested repeatedly over the last seven years. Since reaching the Champions League final, supporters have watched opportunities come and go, managerial projects start and collapse, recruitment mistakes pile up, and periods of stagnation set in despite the club's enormous resources.

So while it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate Levy's achievements, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest fans are ungrateful simply because they're questioning the direction after a quarter of a century. Gratitude for what he's done and frustration at what hasn't been achieved are not mutually exclusive.

But there has never been any gratitude.

 

[thfcsteff]

MGW and Eze? I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but lets be clear, both of those deals are fan/media stories to try and paint Spurs in a bad light

- MGW agreed, there was a release clause, no haggling to do, no issue on our side, their owner went full gangster mode on a player whose wife was in hospital and the player backed down. To put that on DL/Lange/anyone at Spurs is utterly insane.

- Eze always wanted Arsenal, he called Arteta personally, he always was going to the minute he had numbers to offer the Arsenal. The fudge up on our side was not be clear up front with CAA (his agency that we deal with for a lot of other players) and him that we weren't a back up option.

No doubt there was a fall out, but it's highly unlikely it had anything to do with those two transfers. The going rumour with most legs is the number of bids on the club that the Lewis family and Levy didn't agree on (we don't know if one wanted to sell, one wanted different terms, whatever. There was some noise Levy wanted to stay on in case of sale .. that's all speculation)

What is clear with Eze was we had several chances over two seasons to buy the player. Each time we came sniffing, we ended up trying to lowball. If Havertz hadn't got hurt the Goons would never have gone for him. One of the main reasons Parrish got tinkled off last summer and finally played us was because of the unsettling we'd done not just with Eze for a couple of seasons but Zaha before him.

 

[Jurgen the German]

But there has never been any gratitude.

I'm not sure what "gratitude" is supposed to look like in this context.

Football supporters don't generally exist to show affection to owners or chairmen. Their relationship is with the club, the team, and the badge. Owners and executives are judged on the job they're doing, not celebrated unconditionally.

Were Spurs fans ungrateful when they embraced the stadium project despite years of disruption? Were they ungrateful when they continued filling the ground, buying tickets, merchandise, and supporting the team through managerial changes, rebuilds, and periods of decline? Because that sounds like a pretty patient and supportive fanbase to me.

The reality is that Daniel Levy has received plenty of credit over the years for transforming the club's infrastructure and finances. The stadium is regularly praised, and many supporters acknowledge that Spurs are in a stronger commercial position because of his stewardship.

But gratitude doesn't mean immunity from criticism.

After 25 years in charge, fans are entitled to ask questions about the football side of the club. That's not a lack of appreciation; it's accountability. If supporters can't question decisions after a quarter of a century, then what exactly is the standard?

I'd genuinely ask: what would sufficient gratitude look like? Endless praise? No criticism? Acceptance regardless of results? Because that's not how football works at any club. Chairmen and owners are judged by outcomes, just as managers and players are.